737 Max compared to Airbus NEO

You don't need proprietary information to debunk that.

Max range of an A321 is 3200 NM. Even if it could only fly 2000 NM at full load, which is rather pessimistic, it should still be able to fly LAX-DFW no problem at ~1100 NM.
 
wheelsup said:
When you are a network planner at a major airline then I will think your opinions carry weight. For now you analyze based on unknowns. You don't know what you don't know so to speak.

I really don't know why they bumped you. Maybe it was to get another passenger on. I've had gate agents be misinformed before, or make excuses to avoid confrontation. But suffice to say what you experienced is not anything near normal, and I can see how if you believe it is, why you would have such feelings for the airplane.

I pulled up a DFW-LAX flight (headwinds vs tailwinds going the other way) on an A321 recently. This flight could have potentially flown DFW-LAX, full of pax, then flown to PHX and still landed legally with required reserves. And that was without putting on more gas.
Click to expand...

It's kind of funny. All this backlash over me starting with this...


mshunter said:
There are certain missions that only the 75 can do. IMO, getting rid of the tooling to produce it is the biggest mistake Boeing has ever made. With the advances in engine technology, just re-engining it and giving it an all glass cockpit would have made it an instant success.

757-NEO

Instead, companies are stuck pulling old airframes out of the desert, and making do. There simply isn't anything on the market right now, that's new, that'll do what a 75 does.
Click to expand...


Yes, I just quoted myself.

I bow down to your superior intellect and wisdom. I have no idea what I'm even doing here.
 
Cptnchia said:
This is so cool. Pilots arguing over the economics of an airframe, without having any of the information that the big brains in network have. Next, you'll all be spouting off investing advice.
Click to expand...

I kept trying to say that. With Delta pulling them out of the desert, they know something we don't. I wasn't arguing the economics of the airframe. I was saying that it could do what others can't btw.
 
mshunter said:
I kept trying to say that. With Delta pulling them out of the desert, they know something we don't. I wasn't arguing the economics of the airframe. I was saying that it could do what others can't btw.
Click to expand...

Oh, no. I got what you were saying. I agree with you. It's the other experts I was referring to!
 
Cptnchia said:
This is so cool. Pilots arguing over the economics of an airframe, without having any of the information that the big brains in network have. Next, you'll all be spouting off investing advice.
Click to expand...

mshunter said:
I kept trying to say that. With Delta pulling them out of the desert, they know something we don't. I wasn't arguing the economics of the airframe. I was saying that it could do what others can't btw.
Click to expand...

Cptnchia said:
Oh, no. I got what you were saying. I agree with you. It's the other experts I was referring to!
Click to expand...

I actually think we're all in more agreement than not, we just might be speaking past each other. I don't claim to be an expert, but this an area I can speak to with a bit more confidence since I live in fleet/network data on a day-to-day basis. Not all of us here are pilots ;) - some fell off the wagon along the way but still enjoy the community.

Both @mshunter and @wheelsup are correct on the 757. @mshunter is correct that the 757 is the only large narrowbody in today's environment that can handle niche long/thin routes, and hot/high airports. Cheap fuel has probably made it easy to bring parked 752s back to support existing markets, and possibly even re-open markets that were previously unprofitable at higher gas prices. I would also add that Delta sold 11 757s for the NBA charter program in late 2015, so some of the aircraft coming out of the desert could be replacing those (?). Regardless, the fleet folks in Atlanta, some of whom I know well, know exactly what they are doing. The math works for them.

@wheelsup is also correct that for the remainder of 757 markets, which tend to be shorter-haul and the majority of 752 departures, the 752 cannot compete. Think relatively benign stuff like ATL-MCO, ATL-LAX, JFK-LAX, etc. United once claimed that every 739 that replaced a 752 generated an additional $2M in annual profits. The math here works for United.

@mshunter unfortunate story being bumped on DFW-LAX. At first blush that should be a market the 739 can handle just fine with a full payload. I wonder if the flight was operating at/near MZFW, with a unique LAX reserve requirement that put it at risk of exceeding MLW on arrival? I can't really think of another reason this would happen. Probably plenty of other scenarios, I'm sure, this is just the first one that comes to mind. Not an uncommon occurrence in island markets, where flights go out at MZFW and alternates are spread out enough that you have to carry more reserve gas than usual - MLW becomes the limiting factor.
 
Last edited:
OK I'll bite as a 175 driver... what do you do in the airbus for the last 1000 feet if you're operating close to other traffic where they're applying min IFR separation to avoid a TCAS RA? Forgive my ignorance... That's the only time I monkey with VS, to convince the plane that we aren't going to hit that guy climbing below us about to level.
 
Ecl!pse said:
I actually think we're all in more agreement than not, we just might be speaking past each other. I don't claim to be an expert, but this an area I can speak to with a bit more confidence since I live in fleet/network data on a day-to-day basis. Not all of us here are pilots ;) - some fell off the wagon along the way but still enjoy the community.

Both @mshunter and @wheelsup are correct on the 757. @mshunter is correct that the 757 is the only large narrowbody in today's environment that can handle niche long/thin routes, and hot/high airports. Cheap fuel has probably made it easy to bring parked 752s back to support existing markets, and possibly even re-open markets that were previously unprofitable at higher gas prices. I would also add that Delta sold 11 757s for the NBA charter program in late 2015, so some of the aircraft coming out of the desert could be replacing those (?). Regardless, the fleet folks in Atlanta, some of whom I know well, know exactly what they are doing. The math works for them.

@wheelsup is also correct that for the remainder of 757 markets, which tend to be shorter-haul and the majority of 752 departures, the 752 cannot compete. Think relatively benign stuff like ATL-MCO, ATL-LAX, JFK-LAX, etc. United once claimed that every 739 that replaced a 752 generated an additional $2M in annual profits. The math here works for United.

@mshunter unfortunate story being bumped on DFW-LAX. At first blush that should be a market the 739 can handle just fine with a full payload. I wonder if the flight was operating at/near MZFW, with a unique LAX reserve requirement that put it at risk of exceeding MLW on arrival? I can't really think of another reason this would happen. Probably plenty of other scenarios, I'm sure, this is just the first one that comes to mind. Not an uncommon occurrence in island markets, where flights go out at MZFW and alternates are spread out enough that you have to carry more reserve gas than usual - MLW becomes the limiting factor.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter why it was weight restricted. It still was.
 
mshunter said:
It doesn't matter why it was weight restricted. It still was.
Click to expand...

Understood - I'm not trying to argue the fact that it was weight restricted. Just trying to offer up a possible explanation from what I have seen, and to better understand/learn what actually caused the restriction - the root cause does matter and is one of many considerations when making these decisions, so anything to get smarter on the topic is a win for everyone.
 
Dphoenix said:
OK I'll bite as a 175 driver... what do you do in the airbus for the last 1000 feet if you're operating close to other traffic where they're applying min IFR separation to avoid a TCAS RA? Forgive my ignorance... That's the only time I monkey with VS, to convince the plane that we aren't going to hit that guy climbing below us about to level.
Click to expand...
Climbing or descending V/S. What derg and others are talking about (I believe) are guys not paying attention to what regime they're in and try to outsmart the autopilot.
The Airbus doesn't have an altitude hold, per se, but ALT CRZ. It will level off at 3-5-0 or whatever, but it will maintain +/- 50' as not to make large thrust changes.

I V/S a lot departing IAH, since we depart under the arrivAls it seems.
I think this is what you're asking.
 
Dphoenix said:
OK I'll bite as a 175 driver... what do you do in the airbus for the last 1000 feet if you're operating close to other traffic where they're applying min IFR separation to avoid a TCAS RA? Forgive my ignorance... That's the only time I monkey with VS, to convince the plane that we aren't going to hit that guy climbing below us about to level.
Click to expand...
Pull VS and roll it to 1500.

If you are climbing really fast sometimes it will capture 1500-2000 ft below level off. So sometimes you have to really lead it if you are paying attention.

I've never gotten an RA but you will get a TA if you don't start to lead it.
 
Even if you capture and pull vertical speed again, it will re-capture. You'd have to really eff it up to blow through your altitude. Without changing your selected altitude, you can't mess up too much. I know people like to give the Bus a bad reputation but I'd say 99.9% of the time a fark up happens, it's usually pilot-induce error.
 
Dphoenix said:
OK I'll bite as a 175 driver... what do you do in the airbus for the last 1000 feet if you're operating close to other traffic where they're applying min IFR separation to avoid a TCAS RA? Forgive my ignorance... That's the only time I monkey with VS, to convince the plane that we aren't going to hit that guy climbing below us about to level.
Click to expand...

You do what you would in any plane. Whatever technique. Go ahead and select vertical speed of 1,000 fpm if you like.
 
Dphoenix said:
OK I'll bite as a 175 driver... what do you do in the airbus for the last 1000 feet if you're operating close to other traffic where they're applying min IFR separation to avoid a TCAS RA? Forgive my ignorance... That's the only time I monkey with VS, to convince the plane that we aren't going to hit that guy climbing below us about to level.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm a lazy pilot, but it's not my job to worry about that. In 20 years, I've never tried to convince the TCAS of anything.
 
Yeah in our case it's in our FOM to do so when traffic is around. "In the 175" oh god I'm doing it, we use FLCH for any sort of large climb or usually on descent, however like in LAX for example where they give you 7000 on departure and pass you under arrivals level, FLCH if you're light might be +4000fpm so I switch vertical modes at ~5000ish and begin to walk the climb rate back to 1000 FPM to avoid that problem, it'll smoothly bring power back and by the time I'm passing 6000 should be doing the commanded 1000FPM and at about ~6750 it'll go into altitude capture mode and honor the 7000 in the window. Granted, if you were at 4000FPM it'd select altitude capture mode probably far earlier like 6100 feet due to the increased rate of climb. So I'm curious how it's different in the A320, if hitting VS after the altitude capture mode has already initiated screws up the AP logic with regards to altitude capture and hold, but I can see where people from my company transitioning would drive Derg crazy...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top